Upload
jess-day
View
630
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Knowledge Exchange presentation by Anastasia Kavada at the 2012 eCampaigning Forum in Oxford.
Citation preview
Understanding civic engagement on social media platforms
E-campaigning Forum, Oxford 21-22 March 2012
Anastasia Kavada
University of Westminster
Social Media & Engagement Access to new audiences
Lowers costs of mobilization - information can spread through pre-existing social networks
Capacity for interaction and co-production of content carry the potential for community-building
Some Problems Loss of control over the message
Presence on multiple platforms: Dispersion of the supporter base Lack of message coherence Duplication and potential waste of resources
Limited commitment - Transient sense of belonging Weak participation - ‘clicktivism’ &‘slacktivism’ Promote individuality rather than collective unity
Studying civic engagement Practitioners:
‘Ladder of engagement’ or ‘supporter journey’
Academic research: Threshold of participation, rational choice theory
But… Underlying assumption: A smooth progression up the
ladder of engagement?
Focus on the individual and not on how the individual is engaged in the collective
Studying civic engagement
Mapping of Collective ActionBimber, Flanagin & Stohl (2005), (2006)
Mapping of Collective Action
Mode of Engagement
Entrepreneurial: high responsibility & opportunity
Institutional: low responsibility & opportunity
Mode of Interaction [Bonding]
Personal: direct Interaction
Impersonal: no direct interaction
(Flanagin et al., 2006, p. 34)
Studying Social Media Platforms
Move from web 1.0 to 2.0 means that we need to study websites not as top-down communication from advocacy groups to users but as platforms of interaction between a variety of actors (web coordinators, lay users, platform creators etc.)
So we need to pay attention to: classes or types of users roles and rules, governance norms and policy documents modes of interaction and co-production of content
Methods
Case studies:
Main Facebook and Twitter page of 38 Degrees and Amnesty International UK
Methods:
Features analysis (focus on the design and architecture)
Content analysis of comments (focus on the use)
Interviews (focus on the use)
Mode of Engagement
Activities
Affiliating
Framing
Mobilizing
Taking Action
Managing the space
Ranges from institutional to entrepreneurial
Added: presence of the individual voice in the collective
Mode of interaction (or bonding)
Ranges from personal (leads to direct ties) to impersonal (leads to affiliative ties)
Added: who can communicate with whom degree of interactivity (two-way communication) degree of synchronicity degree of privacy
Mode of Engagement
Greater individual autonomy in affiliating to the organization
Framing of issues, narrative of campaigns and agenda-setting is controlled by the organization Design of Facebook pages and Twitter profiles helps to
distinguish between organizational and individual voices
Individuals play a somewhat greater role in curating/arranging information on the platform
Mobilizing: Greater individual autonomy in using one’s social network to spread the word
Mode of Interaction [Bonding]
Individual supporters & organization mainly public and impersonal communication some interaction on discussion pages, wall posts and
@replies
Supporters & their own social networksMore opportunities for synchronous, interactive and private communication
Supporters & Supporters mainly public opportunity for interaction on discussion pages and
Facebook wall – but content analysis shows that this is limited
Mode of Interaction [Bonding]
Interpersonal bonding with one’s own network but affiliative ties with other supporters
Moving forward
Mode of Engagement
Entrepreneurial
Institutional
Mode of Interaction [Bonding]
Personal ImpersonalFB T
W
LG
Understand social media as embedded in the broader
communication ecology of the organization
Moving forward
Mode of Engagement
Entrepreneurial
Institutional
Mode of Interaction [Bonding]
Personal ImpersonalFB T
W
LG
Study the links, flows, and overlaps between different
communication spaces